Actually, managing a conflict with the Royal Navy was not beyond the powers of the French Navy. However, Napoleon's ignorance of naval affairs, his indifference to naval affairs, and his failure to take naval affairs into consideration doomed the marine efforts of the French.
So, for example, at Aboukir Bay, also known as the Battle of the Nile, Nelson was able to "get the drop" on the French fleet because they were laid up near the shore line, doing nothing. Napoleon had marched inland, advancing on Cairo, without having given any consideration to what the navy was doing, or what they ought to have done. He landed his army on July 1st and 2nd, 1798, and began his march as soon as he could put out reconnaissance vedettes and flank guards. It had already been determined by the navy that the harbor at Alexandria was unusable for their purposes (the entrance had silted up, literally, over more than 2000 years since the city had been established and the harbor entrance dredged by the Greco-Madedonian army). They had no vessels or equipment to dredge the entrance to the harbor, and therefore were obliged to drop anchor near the shore at Aboukir Bay. But when they had unloaded all the transport vessels, those were sent back to France. Many of them fell into English hands, of course, but that is the normal price of such naval operations---plenty of English transports and merchantmen fell into French hands in the period 1792-1815.
But why was the fleet still there, a month later, when Nelson attacked over the night of August 1st-2nd, 1798? They were serving no useful purpose. They were not useful for denying a landing, since they could only do that if a landing expedition were stupid enough to challenge them for a landing site. They were not assuring supplies to the army, because to do that would have required them to leave Egypt and convoy any supply ships which would have been sent.
The only reason to have stayed there would have been to interfere with the Royal Navy if they appeared and attempted to interfere with the French. When Nelson attacked, Napoleon had already defeated the Mamelukes and taken Cairo--there simply was no reason for the fleet still to be there. To have provided any type of naval defense of the expedition, they would have needed to put to sea, and patrol the waters lying off the mouth of the Nile. Had Nelson attempted to attack them in the open sea, he might have done great damage, but most of the French fleet might have escaped, and they might also have done great damage to Nelson's squadron.
In naval gunnery of the day, there were two methods which could be used against one's opponents, which involved firing as the ship rolled "up," which would tend to sweep the enemy decks and damage the masts, sails and rigging. The other was to fire as the ship rolled "down," which puts one's shot into the hull. The former method can be augmented with grape shot to kill crew, and chain and bar shot to inflict more damage on masts, sails and rigging. The French tended to favor the former method, and the English favored the latter. In a slug-fest, the English usually prevailed--at both Aboukir Bay and Trafalgar, Nelson correctly assumed that his ships needly only to get in close to the French line (the Franco-Spanish line at Trafalgar) and slug it out. It wouldn't matter if his ships lost headway, because at neither Aboukir Bay nor at Trafalgar was the enemy in a position to sail away and escape. In those situations, superior French gunnery was neutralized, and the effect of the disciplined and usually faster gunnery of the English was enhanced. The attacks at Aboukir Bay and Trafalgar only worked because the enemy was unable to swiftly maneuver, and in fact, was trapped on a lee shore in the latter example. Neither attack would have worked in the open sea, and in fact would likely have been doomed in the open sea. There was nothing which could have been done in the Trafalgar situation, because the Royal Navy was waiting for the Franco-Spanish fleet to come out, and they rather stupidly obliged by putting to sea en masse, rather than attempting to escape by squadrons and reassemble in more open waters.
But at Aboukir Bay, the French surrendered their gunnery advantage by lying against the shore, and preventing themselves from maneuvering to take advantage. The French method had proven effective on many occasions. When in 1781, Admiral de Grasse sailed to Virginia to protect the Franco-American siege of Yorktown, he did enter the Chesapeake, where the English tactical doctrine could have been implemented with great effect. But when he learned that Graves had arrived with the Royal Navy, he left the Bay (uncontested by Graves) and he cruised off the capes at the entrance to the Bay, and waited for the English to come up. Graves obliged, and the ensuing battle was more or less a draw. Six English ships were damaged, and about 300 men killed. The English decided to scuttle one ship which was too damaged to repair at sea or to run from the French, and they were obliged to break off action and tow away two other ships so that they could be protected while they were repaired.
The French had suffered most of their damage "between wind and water," (four ships, about 200 men killed) which means that the English, predictably, fired on the down swing, attempting to hull the enemy ships. The French had used their typical method and had rendered a significant number of Graves' ships unmanageable, forcing Graves to break off the action.
The result was that the two fleets driftrf within sight of each other for a few days, neither willing to renew the contest. But a small French fleet arrived and entered the Bay unmolested, bringing supplies and the French siege artillery to Washington's army. Meanwhile, the English were unable to attempt the relief of Cornwallis while de Grasse still prowled near the entrance to the Bay.
There is no doubt that Nelson was aggressive and was able to brilliantly exploit the situations he found. There should also be no doubt that the French Navy, which had shown itself for more than a century to aggressively and often successfully challenge the Royal Navy, surrendered any advantages they possessed in almost all their operations, and that for much of the period of the Wars of the Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, they simply did nothing. A single individual is responsible for that, and his name was Napoleone Buonaparte.
*************************************
For those who wonder what this has to do with American paranoia about Iran--of course, it has nothing to do with it. But the juice has been squeezed out the topic (at least for now), and the wind has been taken out of the conservative sails with the publication of the recent NIE.
The "war with Iran" party are currently trapped on a lee shore.
Setanta wrote:
....................................
For those who wonder what this has to do with American paranoia about Iran--of course, it has nothing to do with it. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The "war with Iran" party are currently trapped on a lee shore.
Stop selling yourself short! Your erudite stories of naval jollity are echoed in the FT interview mentioned before, though with no link - now finally posted:
Quote:Admiral William Fallon, head of Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, told the Financial Times that while dealing with Iran was a "challenge", a strike was not "in the offing".
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/38dd00ca-90a6-11dc-a6f2-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
You're very kind, Boss. Obviously, I enjoyed that more than this currently moribund topic.
Quote:For those who wonder what this has to do with American paranoia about Iran--of course, it has nothing to do with it. But the juice has been squeezed out the topic (at least for now), and the wind has been taken out of the conservative sails with the publication of the recent NIE.
The "war with Iran" party are currently trapped on a lee shore.
Your encyclopedic knowledge of history never fails to impress. Next time you're in London I'll take you here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/panoramas/painted_hall_1_360.shtml
where Nelson's body lay in state before transported up river to St Paul's Cathederal.
I don't know, Boss . . . he was a very, very vulgar man . . .
blatham wrote:Maybe it was Quebec that didn't have a navy. I know someone didn't.
I think iraq and switzerland don't.
dlowan wrote:blatham wrote:Maybe it was Quebec that didn't have a navy. I know someone didn't.
I think iraq and switzerland don't.
There's a bunch of them? Well, that goes some distance to explaining why so few of those people who yodel come down with scurvy.
Don't forget Paraguay, Bolivia and Mongolia . . .
Setanta wrote:Don't forget Paraguay, Bolivia and Mongolia . . .
Jeepers. You might be right.
Quote:Your search - "mongolians with scurvy" - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
Never underestimate those Mongolians
The New York Times wrote:July 2, 2004
Down an avenue named after Genghis Khan, up to the third floor of a Soviet-era government ministry and down a creaking wooden hallway, its carpet frayed and faded with the dust and the sun of the steppes, one office door has a freshly minted sign: Maritime Administration. In a one-room office, with whirring computers, a fax machine at the ready and model ships for décor, two civil servants oversee the Mongolia Ship Registry, an international service that offers quite competitive fees and no restrictions on the ownership of any ship.
Mongolia, the world's largest landlocked country, with its capital almost 1,000 miles from an ocean beach, is the latest entry in the business of flags of convenience. With Mongolia's red, yellow and blue colors now flying on 260 ships at sea, this unlikely venture is part business, part comedy and part international intrigue. "We earned the treasury about $200,000 last year," Bazarragchaa Altan-Od, head of the Maritime Administration, said, slightly tense for his first interview with the world press. "We have 20 to 30 new registrations every month. The number is increasing."
Fascinating, Bernie!
Btw, an interesting chart can be obtained on Bernie's link by choosing "Chaikin Volatility" under technical indicators bottom left of page, then "update chart"). Maybe we can create our own A2K options pricing model correlating volume, price, volatility, with posts by Gunga, Oralloy, and our other friends here
Does anyone believe that, on the subject of Iran's nuke program/activities, Israel has somehow previously overlooked sharing intel with the Bush administration?
The bit in red points to what is certain to be one key function or goal...coordination with the hawk community and with the pro-Likud lobby to beef up the war-mongering talk in all the relevant media to attempt to turn the PR loss (from the NIE) around.
Quote:Israeli envoys to U.S. to argue Iran still aiming for nuclear bomb
By Barak Ravi, Haaretz Correspondent and The Associated Press
Israel has dispatched an unscheduled delegation of intelligence officials to the U.S. to try to convince it that Iran is still trying to develop nuclear weapon - contrary to the findings of a recent U.S. intelligence report, security officials say.
The delegation, which set off last week on its unscheduled mission, will wind up its visit this week, the officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter with the media.
It was not clear what type of material the Israeli delegation - for the most part military intelligence officers - presented to U.S. officials.
"The U.S. and Israel will also hold additional joint formal meetings on the matter in coming weeks," the Israeli officials said. "Israel will use these forums to try to persuade the Americans that Iran is trying to development nuclear weapons, and intends to present information classified as top secret for security reasons," the officials
said.
The U.S. report, released earlier this month, concludes Iran halted its weapons development program in 2003 and that the program remained frozen through at least through the middle of this year. The findings reversed a key conclusion from a 2005 intelligence report that Iran was developing a bomb.
"Israeli officials who have reviewed all known intelligence on Iran's nuclear activities have concluded that Iran did in fact suspend its atomic weapons development in 2003, after the U.S. invaded Iraq," the Israeli security officials said.
"But Israel is convinced the Iranians set up a new production line whose details aren't known fully to Western intelligence agencies," they said...
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/934989.html
It's merely a show of formality. Israel will be the one to launch the attack against Iran's suspected WMD sites with the US' blessing after having received Israel's "revelatory intelligence." I think its attack on Syria's suspected sites was something of a training mission for their planned attack on Iran's which has been in the works for quite some time now.
The question is when will Israel launch its attack. They may be taking the pending change of US administration into account in deciding a time frame.
infra
I think not. For all sorts of reasons previously noted here.
blatham wrote:infra
I think not. For all sorts of reasons previously noted here.
Maybe they'll follow Gunga's strategic plan and fall off the cliff - yes, honestly!
"Israel may be fourth in the world when it comes to exporting arms, but it is unequivocally not a superpower. Israel is merely one small country, and it is a true superpower (such as the US) that must address the Iranian nuclear threat."
Not once does Fabio mention Israel's attack on Syria's suspected nuclear sites, which makes moot a lot of the points he brings up:
Quote:Air strikes have become much more difficult since they blew off the Egyptians in 1967. To mention just one aspect of this: quality air defense have become cheaper and widely available.
Israel's US made aircraft and armaments operate above the range of any known air defense systems available, unless the Russians have been developing, and delivering to the Iranians something that the US military doesn't know about.
Sadham's Osirak reactor was almost undefended, nor was it hardened.
Many experts consider that Israel's forces are not capable of inflicting serious damage on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Read Oralloy's post earlier in this thread.
Quote:An act of war against another State,
without justification as either an immanent threat (like 1967) or in response to attacks on their land (e.g., Lebanon in 1982 and 2006),
without clear evidence of an active nuclear program (as in their 1981 strike at Iraq), esp. after the November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program (see Wikipedia for a history of Iran's nuclear program),
without authorization by either the United Nations Security Council or the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the IARA said on 28 October "(H)ave we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No."
This could give Israel's many enemies the necessary excuse and motivation to act, emotional hatred and international law combining just as fuel and air do in a fire. Many of the world's governments are already hostile to Israel for various reasons.
Sympathy with the Palestinians for ethnic or religious reasons.
Currying favor with the increasingly powerful Arab oil exports.
Antisemitism.
The IAEA didn't even suspect Syria of having a clandestine nuclear facility, yet Israel attacked nonetheless. What kind of fallout did this incur for Israel other than a few admonitory words from a few nations here and there? What's more, Syria is an Arab country. Some of Iran's Arab neighbors would like to see Iran's growing power checked, and if the dirty deed is perpetrated by another hated country, so much the better for them.
Contrary to what Fabio concludes, the mechanics
would be the most risky aspect of any kind of aerial strikes by Israel against Iran, and that would include two factors that he mentioned: distance and foreign airspace.
I do not believe Israel would violate Jordanian airspace. They've already violated Syria, so they'd probably head northeast again before turning east towards the US' Iraq territory, where the US would give them free passage, and a refueling waypoint to boot, and onward towards Iran. If worse comes to worst, and the IAF would have to abort the mission for whatever reason, the US would allow Israeli aircraft to land in Iraq. That is one scenario, however, that would be incredibly pernicious to the US' efforts in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.
InfraBlue - Turkish airspace was violated in this latest Israeli Air Force bombing on Syrian territory, and the Turks got particularly upset over Israeli pilots jettisoning their empty fuel tanks on the return leg over Turkish territory. You never drop ballast if you can help it in such a case.
But the Russians have no reason to deliver any extremely advanced technology to the Iranians >
> unless that's what you meant?
Btw, you may have heard of our F-15 Eagles falling apart, so if those carpets are available (some mathematician at Harvard proved they're theoretically possible) we want some!
"Fabius Maximus" isn't some guy called "Fabio": he's a very senior intel man using the name of a Roman commander - otherwise he can't publish - and, while I can't speak for him, Pres. Bush did say nobody in the government will comment on the Syria raid until further notice. Here's more of his articles:
http://www.defense-and-society.org/fabius/fabius_archive.htm
